User talk:Mysticjester/Archive 1
__TOC__ Magic Crafting Table Project Progress I'm branching discussion off Krit's page only to offer any assistance you may want to expedite getting the aforementioned tables posted to the NWNWiki. Since there are going to be three tables total, you may have use for a checker or polisher if the conversion script doesn't produce a "pristine" output. Running them in parallel may speed things up. As I had mentioned, the additional columns for spell level and spell type would be handy and my Excel file already has extracted that from the scroll ResRefs, if you are interested in using those fields.--Iconclast 13:39, March 6, 2010 (UTC) * sweet. :-) let's figure out how we're going to do this with tk & get some kind of plan together. i expect that there will be more than enough work to go around. *g* Mysticjester 16:48, March 6, 2010 (UTC) Your columns got rotated at some point. You now have the XP cost in the innate level column, innate level in caster level, etc. --The Krit 19:38, March 23, 2010 (UTC) * that's odd, tk. regardless, these tables are dated. i'll have to edit the wiki script to indicate cost differences & generate new tables so i'll verify the output then. Mysticjester 04:33, March 24, 2010 (UTC) * Excel knows all, sees all *lol* Any edits I submit will take into account any of these differences so it won't go unaddressed *g* --Iconclast 16:00, March 24, 2010 (UTC) * heh. the issue was with the script i was using to convert the excel data to wiki. i added a column to the excel file & forgot to update the column numbers in the script. DOH. should be fixed with the new tables. Mysticjester 16:22, March 24, 2010 (UTC) Now that we are getting close to finishing up this project, the Table Talk page is getting hectic to keep track of for me. Thrice now, I had to discard my edits and redo them because either you or TK were submitting edits at the same time. I suppose that's to be expected as we are apparently rushing to see an almost 3-week effort reach its culmination and all spending "quality" time there. Don't know how tired you are Mj, but I am getting exhausted. TK never gets tired, so I'm not going to doubt his endurance. Too much staring and too much glaucoma for me, I guess. No old geezer cracks, plz! ;) Anyway... if at all possible, I would prefer if the "team" filtered all edits to a central editor. It doesn't matter who, but what I would like to avoid is the need for a lot of messages flying back and forth checking who has done what and when it will get done, that sort of thing. If the role would change from time to time, that is fine, but I still think a central contact is beneficial... to our mutual sanity. Hopefully, TK will check this page and consider this. The Table Talk page, as well-organized as TK has tried to keep it, has become way long to add discussions like this to its already imposing volume (and with the Scroll Scribe table edits on the immediate horizon). So what do you guys think? Feed a central editor or fly by the seat of our respective pantaloons and embark on edit-mania? 8) --Iconclast 22:36, March 24, 2010 (UTC) * You shouldn't have to discard your edits when there's an edit conflict. What's supposed to happen is that you get two editing boxes -- one with the now-current version of the page, and one with what you had been editing. Just copy what you added to to the now-current version. Sometimes you can reduce the chance of an edit conflict by editing a section rather than the entire page, but that doesn't work so well when it's likely both people would be editing the same section. By the way, it does go both ways -- I've sometimes had to copy what I typed because you snuck in an edit. ;) : As for having a central editor, isn't that what Mysticjester has been acting as? Probably doesn't matter at this point though. The nature of what we're doing will change once the tables get put into the wiki. --The Krit 01:47, March 25, 2010 (UTC) * icon: just post the edits necessary to the talk page of the feat. if you make the edits yourself, make a note indicating what you've done so that we don't duplicate effort. i don't mind making the edits if you just want to verify the data. verifying is actually a lot more difficult anyways (though i'll be doing that as well). as far as exhaustion, i'm only half way home. i still have to update the coding for web page. *lol* good work, btw. & yeah, i'm glad the data part of this is over excepting corrections. :-) Mysticjester 02:48, March 26, 2010 (UTC) Tables look good so far. I moved them to the end of the articles so the custom content notes are easier to find (or even to notice they exist ;) ), and there is probably some cleanup left, but at least the info is there. Hmmm... is there a "thumb's up" smiley? --The Krit 21:09, March 25, 2010 (UTC) *thanks, tk. :-) thumbs up smiley to you & icon as well. :-) Mysticjester 02:43, March 26, 2010 (UTC) I just noticed that as we make corrections to the tables, they are ending up looking unordered (because you generated them with innate level as the primary sort, and some of the innate levels were wrong). Before we get too many corrections done, would it be possible to generate the tables sorted by spell name? (Since spell name is the least likely field to need correcting, hence that order is most likely to stand up to corrections.) While people can use the sorting feature to get order they prefer, it would look better to have the tables appear to be sorted initially. --The Krit 16:37, March 28, 2010 (UTC) *can do. also, i will add the cleric = domain flag to the script so you & icon shouldn't have to worry about editing the spell individually.Mysticjester 19:41, March 28, 2010 (UTC) :* All is looking pretty good to me. And the reordering helps a lot, Mj! One question: Have either of you hashed out a boiler plate note regarding the costing anomaly that occurs when crafting Shadow Conjuration? I made one up that uses a mini-table to list just the cost differences but ignores the other characteristics like IL & CL. I am wondering what value should be appearing in the main table: low, middle, high cost values or perhaps some sort of reference value (eg. "note" or "(1)"). --Iconclast 19:54, March 29, 2010 (UTC) :* And, TK... thanks for explaining how to maintain the edits when there is a conflict. Turns out I'm betting neither of you guys were making edits at the same time as I was. Rather, I was using an older cache (finally figured this out!). It seems the editor gives the same diagnostic (i.e. "someone else has just edited the page") as if someone else were doing it. This wiki cache system is really testing my patience. I'm now in the habit of reloading 3 times just to help maintain my peace of mind. --Iconclast 19:54, March 29, 2010 (UTC) Where Can I Find Mysticjester's Wand Crafting Utility? You need a link somewhere in your profile that's easy to find like Mysticjester's Wand Crafting Machine. For some reason, the table headings are not lining up with the spell data. Headings are way to the left, data way to right. (Haven't inspected your HTML yet but if you need help I can check it fast.) Also, the Spell Level 0 (Cantrips) button is on the same row with the alpha buttons instead of the 2nd line with the spell numbers. Finally, sometimes the spell name (links to the Wiki page) blend in with the background. I believe you will need to set default colors for both virgin links and followed links to contrast with your dark background to override the user browser settings. I figured you needed some critique. *lol* I think it's an awesome sweet machine so apply the appropriate cosmetic and away we go!--Iconclast 23:10, March 6, 2010 (UTC) * thanks for the critique. what browser are you using? also, i haven't widely publicized the page because i'm still playing with it. it's permanent locale will be on smokin' bob's wog website once i get done, hopefully in the next week or so. Mysticjester 02:16, March 7, 2010 (UTC) :* Oh... Just a test area. No problem. ::Browser = SeaMonkey. It's what Netscape became after Mozilla took over. I guess I could check your page with the IE version that came with XP but you probably have a copy of that anyway. I was using FireFox for a while but didn't like it after I found the Mozilla browser. When I was designing web pages I had at least a half dozen browsers installed so I could check how each one was handling the java content. I realize that seems like overkill, but our clients couldn't be restricted for even a few days so it saved lots of complaints and headaches (and MONEY!!!).--Iconclast 03:27, March 8, 2010 (UTC) ::*that explains it then. i didn't set it up for seamonkey. right now it's verified functional with internet explorer 8, firefox 3.6, & safari 4. still need to test it for chrome. you're the only person i know that uses seamonkey. *lol* Mysticjester 05:53, March 8, 2010 (UTC) A Bump In The Road Yo, MJ! *waves* I was beginning to evaluate the Brew Potion table you have posted and have run into a surprise. Just fooling around I decided to try to brew some spells not on your table and discovered two that will brew successfully. They are Divine Favor and Identify for the group of innate level 1. I have no problem experimenting with other unlisted spells but am wondering if somehow your filtering procedure to separate the master table may have "over-filtered". Before I continue, could you re-check your original source data to see if some got missed? In the entire Wand Craft table, I hadn't located any missed spells hence my surprise to find these. Before I invest extra data entry time (I type like a drunken orangutan!) it might be a better strategy to analyze the process. The Brew Potion list is much smaller than the Wand Craft so it may not be that difficult to assess. Keep me posted, K?--Iconclast 00:23, March 10, 2010 (UTC) * icon: my base table was based on testing i did on wog & later with tk's better crafting system in place. this is why in the other thread i asked tk if there was a simple way to see what could be brewed, crafted, or scribed based on 2da files or whatever. if there is not, then yes, we'll need to go through & brew/craft/scribe every spell using a vanilla nwn install. :* right. now I remember you asking about that. Then in that case, maybe don't consider the changes I uploaded to the Craft Wand table as anything but a baseline until I experiment with the unlisted spells. for wands, the constraints are supposed to be tighter than brewing but the Target: Single guideline that the Brew feat lists seems out-of-whack with the true mechanism. Even the Bless example they give is listed as "colossal" rather than "single". What's that old expression? Ignorance is bliss? I think they were onto something there. *lol*. Hang in there, MJ!--Iconclast 02:08, March 10, 2010 (UTC) ::*& really, it might be an idea to list spells that cannot be brewed/crafted as well with a note indicating that. or dashes. Mysticjester 03:07, March 10, 2010 (UTC) Need a Confirmation Hey Mj! I ran into a snag trying to compile a master index of all the vanilla spells used in v1.69 so I am hoping you can help me out. My spell.2da lists War Cry with Innate Level of 4 yet the des_crft_spells.2da lists it as 3. The spell.2da wiki table lists Innate Level of 3 but the talk page indicated it may be an older version. However, it may have been updated recently and may actually reflect the latest patch (I noticed TK was working on it but haven't examined the history on changes). All I want to do is make sure the Innate Level is correct for the v1.69 version and am conflicted as to what to do. The 2da's in this installation are both Vers 2.0 (per the 2dasource.zip) What I would like you to do is check what Innate Level your respective 2da's contain and report your findings here on your talk page. It should be easy to locate because there is only one row with War Cry. (I've posted the same question on the wiki spell.2da table talk page in case a builder has run into this and can recommend a solution.). When you can, please check these two files for the Innate values on your own configuration. Thanks ;) --Iconclast 14:55, March 12, 2010 (UTC) * spells.2da lists warcry as a level 4 bard spell & innately a level 4 spell. des craft lists it as being level 3. Mysticjester 17:32, March 12, 2010 (UTC) :* So we match. Kewl. ;) Tx for the check. It shouldn't affect anything with our tables since it can't be brewed or crafted regardless of innate level. I am curious to see what innate level appears on the scribed scroll, though.--Iconclast 19:29, March 12, 2010 (UTC) ::* well, it can't be crafted under vanilla nwn. there's always tk's craft magic script. ;-) Mysticjester 19:36, March 12, 2010 (UTC) :::* How come not? I just tried it (w/lvl 20 bard) and it doesn't scribe like you said but reading the description for scribe scroll there doesn't seem to be any constraint to prevent it. Also, the des_crft_spells.2da has it unblocked (=0) and the IPRP_SPELLS.2da has all spells unblocked for general use (whatever that means). (I'm going to download all the latest 2da's to see what has changed from the V 2.0 I've been using so far because this is beginning to bug me.)--Iconclast 23:20, March 12, 2010 (UTC) :::: Follow-up :::: After examining as many of the newest 2da's in the download as seem applicable, I am coming to conclusion that what actually determines if a scroll can be scribed is whether there is a tag code for it in the des_crft_scrolls.2da table. None of the switches in any other spell-type 2da seems to have any effect on success (I am betting one could change all the values for scroll use to either 0 or 1 without affecting the scribing outcome). :::: So my overall question is then: How does the feat description help a player figure out which spells can be scribed? The current description implies that any spell can be scribed as long as the costs are met... and that is simply not true. What am I missing here that should be obvious, Mj?--Iconclast 00:31, March 13, 2010 (UTC) ::::* it's a bug. it should be craftable. iirc, that was the initial impetus for tk to come up with his a better craft magic system. i think that the thread still exists somewhere on the wog forums. tk would be a better source on this as he is more familiar with the internal operations of nwn. i'm more into game mechanics i.e. playing. ;-) also coding general (i.e. non-nwn) stuff like wiki, xhtml/css/javascript, vb, vc#. Mysticjester 20:49, March 13, 2010 (UTC) ::::* I forget if I covered this elsewhere, so: War cry is the one spell that does not have a standard scroll. Since scroll scribing produces standard scrolls and there is no standard war cry scroll, the scribing routine kind of has to fail when trying to scribe war cry. (Also, those are ResRefs, not tags, in des_crft_scrolls.2da.) I never did find out why there is no war cry scroll. Probably an oversight that was either not reported or deemed not worth the time to fix. --The Krit 22:17, March 24, 2010 (UTC) Duplicate statements on Craft Wand and Brew Potion articles Yo Mj! I'm assuming you didn't notice but you added a statement about how to handle cantrips with the formula that duplicate the information in the note directly above. You need more caffeine!!! icon * *lol* i didn't notice. & actually, i was up all night doing the new tables (which i should have ready at some point later today). did get a few zzzz's this morning though. thanks for catching that. *still lmao* removed duplicate notes. Mysticjester 19:35, March 22, 2010 (UTC) Incorrect entries I have noticed in a few instances a few spells are assigned incorrect information, such as the innate level of vampiric touch from craft wand being 8, and the innate level of warcry from brew potion being 4. If you do have this set up in excel, could you just make a quick equation (all that really needs to be done is multiply columns and compare with another column) that checks if the formulas given (e.g. 50 * innate level * caster level = brew potion GP) are actually working for all the entries? WhiZard 13:35, March 25, 2010 (UTC) * whiz, appreciate you checking up on this. i can certainly update the excel files but unfortunately, the cost basis of the crafted items are kinda weird. you can check the talk page tk set up for our conversations on that. essentially the issue is that the casting level of some of the crafted items are off compared to the cost i.e. a spell scribes at level 3 but the costs are at level 10. i think our best bet at this point is going to be manually editing the errors as we find them. icon & i are going to be going through the data over the next week or so to find the errors & fix them. if you can spare some time to help, that would be sweet. Mysticjester 20:16, March 25, 2010 (UTC) * We made a decision earlier on in the discussion of this project to develop three tables independently rather than post a single comprehensive table. By consensus, the team accepted the fact that there would be some difficulty coordinating the corrections, but in order to expedite the posting of tables that path was chosen. As of this posting, the innate levels should now be correct and consistent between all tables and the respective spell articles. Also, in several cases, the spell articles have been modified to illuminate the difference between the in-game information and what value is actually used by the game engine via the spells.2da. Our tables always default to the .2da values. (During verification process I was caught myself when I found out that there was a newer .2da version available from the Bioware download page, forcing me to reconstruct all the data I had extracted previously.) We are depending on more eyes to sanitize even more thoroughly ;) --Iconclast 19:12, March 30, 2010 (UTC) :*i should note though that my xlsx file has the costs for all three feats in one table. i've been trying to keep that updated with the corrections so if we need to regenerate the tables from scratch (as tk requested last week), we can without having to go back & make the same corrections. Mysticjester 20:52, March 30, 2010 (UTC) Itemized Edits of Crafting Tables Rather than itemize edits made to any of the article pages on the respective talk page, maybe it would be better to organize them together here on your talk page. In this way we can reduce the amount of superfluous text on the talk pages that should probably be better focused on discussing issues. Reasonable? * icon: i always viewed those as temporary. i was planning to clean all the lists out once we got done. Mysticjester 20:55, March 30, 2010 (UTC) :* Right. Until then this is as good a consolidation area as any, no? --Iconclast 23:08, March 30, 2010 (UTC) ::* eh, the current layout works. if we're going to delete it anyways, then why bother moving it? *lol* but if you & tk would prefer to move it here for the time being, i have no objections. Mysticjester 01:12, March 31, 2010 (UTC) :::* haven't moved a thing, Mj. these are all new edits since the ones posted on the talk page. TK uses the history and you wanted a list. Here it is! ;) The balance of classes should all be checked by me by end of tomorrow, maybe earlier. Then I have grass to mow :) --Iconclast 02:31, March 31, 2010 (UTC) :* Rather than cleaned out, the lists should be archived. I'll take care of the talk pages for the articles once it's been a few weeks since there's been activity on this front. (I'm currently reviewing stuff I might have missed the first time around, as you might have guessed from the timing of this post.) Would you like me to archive the relevant sections of your user talk while I'm at it (when I get to it)? --The Krit 00:10, April 18, 2010 (UTC) ---- * Scribe scroll: removed cleric as viable class/domain for Aura to vitality (scribe fails). * Scribe scroll: added a row to table for Undeath to death data, ref. Talk:Scribe_scroll. --Iconclast 18:51, March 30, 2010 (UTC) * Craft wand: added C to classes for Inflict moderate wounds. * Craft wand: added Cd to classes for Invisibility sphere * Scribe scroll: added C to classes for Inflict moderate wounds. : Domain tags have now been checked and verified for all tables. --Iconclast 23:30, March 30, 2010 (UTC) * Brew potion: class, added B to Clarity * Brew potion: class, added C to Find traps * Brew potion: class, removed B from Magic fang * Brew potion: class, added C to Magic weapon : All class tags should now correct for Brew potion feat barring anomalies. --Iconclast 02:31, March 31, 2010 (UTC) * Craft wand: class, added B to Clarity * Craft wand: class, added C to Find traps * Craft wand: class, added D to Freedom of movement * Craft wand: class, added C to Magic weapon * Craft wand: class, added C to Sound burst : All class tags should now correct for Craft wand feat barring anomalies. --Iconclast 03:59, March 31, 2010 (UTC) * Scribe scroll: class, added B to Clarity * Scribe scroll: class, added B to Ethereal visage * Scribe scroll: class, added C to Find traps * Scribe scroll: class, added D to Freedom of movement * Scribe scroll: class, removed B from Magic fang * Scribe scroll: class, added C to Magic weapon * Scribe scroll: class, added C to Sound burst : All class tags should now correct for Scribe scroll feat barring anomalies. : Domain and class tag corrections complete for all tables. --Iconclast 06:31, March 31, 2010 (UTC) Sunbeam innate level Yo, Mj! I noticed you changed the innate level of Sunbeam from 7 to 8 and am wondering where you got that level. The spells.2da and des_crft_spells.2da are both listing it as level 7 (item 183 on both tables) and also the Sunbeam article was recently changed to reflect that fact. --Iconclast 05:35, April 15, 2010 (UTC) * will recheck to make sure but i believe that's what i got from the crafting equations based on the in game costs. sry for the delay in response. incidentally, you and/or tk are welcome to delete or archive the conversations. if no one gets to it, i'll go ahead & do that as time permits. Mysticjester 12:09, May 2, 2010 (UTC) :* Don't worry about the archiving. I'll take care of that, probably later this week as it seems to have been stable for a while. --The Krit 03:25, May 3, 2010 (UTC) ::* ah, thanks, tk. i've been focused on getting the wog website set up so my project time has been pretty much filled up lately. s.